-
由 Michal Hocko 提交于
Soft limit reclaim has to check the whole reclaim hierarchy while doing the first pass of the reclaim. This leads to a higher system time which can be visible especially when there are many groups in the hierarchy. This patch adds a per-memcg counter of children in excess. It also restores MEM_CGROUP_TARGET_SOFTLIMIT into mem_cgroup_event_ratelimit for a proper batching. If a group crosses soft limit for the first time it increases parent's children_in_excess up the hierarchy. The similarly if a group gets below the limit it will decrease the counter. The transition phase is recorded in soft_contributed flag. mem_cgroup_soft_reclaim_eligible then uses this information to better decide whether to skip the node or the whole subtree. The rule is simple. Skip the node with a children in excess or skip the whole subtree otherwise. This has been tested by a stream IO (dd if=/dev/zero of=file with 4*MemTotal size) which is quite sensitive to overhead during reclaim. The load is running in a group with soft limit set to 0 and without any limit. Apart from that there was a hierarchy with ~500, 2k and 8k groups (two groups on each level) without any pages in them. base denotes to the kernel on which the whole series is based on, rework is the kernel before this patch and reworkoptim is with this patch applied: * Run with soft limit set to 0 Elapsed 0-0-limit/base: min: 88.21 max: 94.61 avg: 91.73 std: 2.65 runs: 3 0-0-limit/rework: min: 76.05 [86.2%] max: 79.08 [83.6%] avg: 77.84 [84.9%] std: 1.30 runs: 3 0-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 77.98 [88.4%] max: 80.36 [84.9%] avg: 78.92 [86.0%] std: 1.03 runs: 3 System 0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 34.86 max: 36.42 avg: 35.89 std: 0.73 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/rework: min: 43.26 [124.1%] max: 48.95 [134.4%] avg: 46.09 [128.4%] std: 2.32 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 46.98 [134.8%] max: 50.98 [140.0%] avg: 48.49 [135.1%] std: 1.77 runs: 3 Elapsed 0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 88.50 max: 97.52 avg: 93.92 std: 3.90 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/rework: min: 75.92 [85.8%] max: 78.45 [80.4%] avg: 77.34 [82.3%] std: 1.06 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 75.79 [85.6%] max: 79.37 [81.4%] avg: 77.55 [82.6%] std: 1.46 runs: 3 System 2k-0-limit/base: min: 34.57 max: 37.65 avg: 36.34 std: 1.30 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/rework: min: 64.17 [185.6%] max: 68.20 [181.1%] avg: 66.21 [182.2%] std: 1.65 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 49.78 [144.0%] max: 52.99 [140.7%] avg: 51.00 [140.3%] std: 1.42 runs: 3 Elapsed 2k-0-limit/base: min: 92.61 max: 97.83 avg: 95.03 std: 2.15 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/rework: min: 78.33 [84.6%] max: 84.08 [85.9%] avg: 81.09 [85.3%] std: 2.35 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 75.72 [81.8%] max: 78.57 [80.3%] avg: 76.73 [80.7%] std: 1.30 runs: 3 System 8k-0-limit/base: min: 39.78 max: 42.09 avg: 41.09 std: 0.97 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/rework: min: 200.86 [504.9%] max: 265.42 [630.6%] avg: 241.80 [588.5%] std: 29.06 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 53.70 [135.0%] max: 54.89 [130.4%] avg: 54.43 [132.5%] std: 0.52 runs: 3 Elapsed 8k-0-limit/base: min: 95.11 max: 98.61 avg: 96.81 std: 1.43 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/rework: min: 246.96 [259.7%] max: 331.47 [336.1%] avg: 301.32 [311.2%] std: 38.52 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 76.79 [80.7%] max: 81.71 [82.9%] avg: 78.97 [81.6%] std: 2.05 runs: 3 System time is increased by 30-40% but it is reduced a lot comparing to kernel without this patch. The higher time can be explained by the fact that the original soft reclaim scanned at priority 0 so it was much more effective for this workload (which is basically touch once and writeback). The Elapsed time looks better though (~20%). * Run with no soft limit set System 0-no-limit/base: min: 42.18 max: 50.38 avg: 46.44 std: 3.36 runs: 3 0-no-limit/rework: min: 40.57 [96.2%] max: 47.04 [93.4%] avg: 43.82 [94.4%] std: 2.64 runs: 3 0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 40.45 [95.9%] max: 45.28 [89.9%] avg: 42.10 [90.7%] std: 2.25 runs: 3 Elapsed 0-no-limit/base: min: 75.97 max: 78.21 avg: 76.87 std: 0.96 runs: 3 0-no-limit/rework: min: 75.59 [99.5%] max: 80.73 [103.2%] avg: 77.64 [101.0%] std: 2.23 runs: 3 0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 77.85 [102.5%] max: 82.42 [105.4%] avg: 79.64 [103.6%] std: 1.99 runs: 3 System 0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 44.54 max: 46.93 avg: 46.12 std: 1.12 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/rework: min: 42.09 [94.5%] max: 46.16 [98.4%] avg: 43.92 [95.2%] std: 1.69 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 42.47 [95.4%] max: 45.67 [97.3%] avg: 44.06 [95.5%] std: 1.31 runs: 3 Elapsed 0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 78.26 max: 81.49 avg: 79.65 std: 1.36 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/rework: min: 77.01 [98.4%] max: 80.43 [98.7%] avg: 78.30 [98.3%] std: 1.52 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 76.13 [97.3%] max: 77.87 [95.6%] avg: 77.18 [96.9%] std: 0.75 runs: 3 System 2k-no-limit/base: min: 62.96 max: 69.14 avg: 66.14 std: 2.53 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/rework: min: 76.01 [120.7%] max: 81.06 [117.2%] avg: 78.17 [118.2%] std: 2.12 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 62.57 [99.4%] max: 66.10 [95.6%] avg: 64.53 [97.6%] std: 1.47 runs: 3 Elapsed 2k-no-limit/base: min: 76.47 max: 84.22 avg: 79.12 std: 3.60 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/rework: min: 89.67 [117.3%] max: 93.26 [110.7%] avg: 91.10 [115.1%] std: 1.55 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 76.94 [100.6%] max: 79.21 [94.1%] avg: 78.45 [99.2%] std: 1.07 runs: 3 System 8k-no-limit/base: min: 104.74 max: 151.34 avg: 129.21 std: 19.10 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/rework: min: 205.23 [195.9%] max: 285.94 [188.9%] avg: 258.98 [200.4%] std: 38.01 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 161.16 [153.9%] max: 184.54 [121.9%] avg: 174.52 [135.1%] std: 9.83 runs: 3 Elapsed 8k-no-limit/base: min: 125.43 max: 181.00 avg: 154.81 std: 22.80 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/rework: min: 254.05 [202.5%] max: 355.67 [196.5%] avg: 321.46 [207.6%] std: 47.67 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 193.77 [154.5%] max: 222.72 [123.0%] avg: 210.18 [135.8%] std: 12.13 runs: 3 Both System and Elapsed are in stdev with the base kernel for all configurations except for 8k where both System and Elapsed are up by 35%. I do not have a good explanation for this because there is no soft reclaim pass going on as no group is above the limit which is checked in mem_cgroup_should_soft_reclaim. Then I have tested kernel build with the same configuration to see the behavior with a more general behavior. * Soft limit set to 0 for the build System 0-0-limit/base: min: 242.70 max: 245.17 avg: 243.85 std: 1.02 runs: 3 0-0-limit/rework min: 237.86 [98.0%] max: 240.22 [98.0%] avg: 239.00 [98.0%] std: 0.97 runs: 3 0-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 241.11 [99.3%] max: 243.53 [99.3%] avg: 242.01 [99.2%] std: 1.08 runs: 3 Elapsed 0-0-limit/base: min: 348.48 max: 360.86 avg: 356.04 std: 5.41 runs: 3 0-0-limit/rework min: 286.95 [82.3%] max: 290.26 [80.4%] avg: 288.27 [81.0%] std: 1.43 runs: 3 0-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 286.55 [82.2%] max: 289.00 [80.1%] avg: 287.69 [80.8%] std: 1.01 runs: 3 System 0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 251.77 max: 254.41 avg: 252.70 std: 1.21 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/rework min: 286.44 [113.8%] max: 289.30 [113.7%] avg: 287.60 [113.8%] std: 1.23 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 252.18 [100.2%] max: 253.16 [99.5%] avg: 252.62 [100.0%] std: 0.41 runs: 3 Elapsed 0.5k-0-limit/base: min: 347.83 max: 353.06 avg: 350.04 std: 2.21 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/rework min: 290.19 [83.4%] max: 295.62 [83.7%] avg: 293.12 [83.7%] std: 2.24 runs: 3 0.5k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 293.91 [84.5%] max: 294.87 [83.5%] avg: 294.29 [84.1%] std: 0.42 runs: 3 System 2k-0-limit/base: min: 263.05 max: 271.52 avg: 267.94 std: 3.58 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/rework min: 458.99 [174.5%] max: 468.31 [172.5%] avg: 464.45 [173.3%] std: 3.97 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 267.10 [101.5%] max: 279.38 [102.9%] avg: 272.78 [101.8%] std: 5.05 runs: 3 Elapsed 2k-0-limit/base: min: 372.33 max: 379.32 avg: 375.47 std: 2.90 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/rework min: 334.40 [89.8%] max: 339.52 [89.5%] avg: 337.44 [89.9%] std: 2.20 runs: 3 2k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 301.47 [81.0%] max: 319.19 [84.1%] avg: 307.90 [82.0%] std: 8.01 runs: 3 System 8k-0-limit/base: min: 320.50 max: 332.10 avg: 325.46 std: 4.88 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/rework min: 1115.76 [348.1%] max: 1165.66 [351.0%] avg: 1132.65 [348.0%] std: 23.34 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 403.75 [126.0%] max: 409.22 [123.2%] avg: 406.16 [124.8%] std: 2.28 runs: 3 Elapsed 8k-0-limit/base: min: 475.48 max: 585.19 avg: 525.54 std: 45.30 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/rework min: 616.25 [129.6%] max: 625.90 [107.0%] avg: 620.68 [118.1%] std: 3.98 runs: 3 8k-0-limit/reworkoptim: min: 420.18 [88.4%] max: 428.28 [73.2%] avg: 423.05 [80.5%] std: 3.71 runs: 3 Apart from 8k the system time is comparable with the base kernel while Elapsed is up to 20% better with all configurations. * No soft limit set System 0-no-limit/base: min: 234.76 max: 237.42 avg: 236.25 std: 1.11 runs: 3 0-no-limit/rework min: 233.09 [99.3%] max: 238.65 [100.5%] avg: 236.09 [99.9%] std: 2.29 runs: 3 0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 236.12 [100.6%] max: 240.53 [101.3%] avg: 237.94 [100.7%] std: 1.88 runs: 3 Elapsed 0-no-limit/base: min: 288.52 max: 295.42 avg: 291.29 std: 2.98 runs: 3 0-no-limit/rework min: 283.17 [98.1%] max: 284.33 [96.2%] avg: 283.78 [97.4%] std: 0.48 runs: 3 0-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 288.50 [100.0%] max: 290.79 [98.4%] avg: 289.78 [99.5%] std: 0.95 runs: 3 System 0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 286.51 max: 293.23 avg: 290.21 std: 2.78 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/rework min: 291.69 [101.8%] max: 294.38 [100.4%] avg: 292.97 [101.0%] std: 1.10 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 277.05 [96.7%] max: 288.76 [98.5%] avg: 284.17 [97.9%] std: 5.11 runs: 3 Elapsed 0.5k-no-limit/base: min: 294.94 max: 298.92 avg: 296.47 std: 1.75 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/rework min: 292.55 [99.2%] max: 294.21 [98.4%] avg: 293.55 [99.0%] std: 0.72 runs: 3 0.5k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 294.41 [99.8%] max: 301.67 [100.9%] avg: 297.78 [100.4%] std: 2.99 runs: 3 System 2k-no-limit/base: min: 443.41 max: 466.66 avg: 457.66 std: 10.19 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/rework min: 490.11 [110.5%] max: 516.02 [110.6%] avg: 501.42 [109.6%] std: 10.83 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 435.25 [98.2%] max: 458.11 [98.2%] avg: 446.73 [97.6%] std: 9.33 runs: 3 Elapsed 2k-no-limit/base: min: 330.85 max: 333.75 avg: 332.52 std: 1.23 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/rework min: 343.06 [103.7%] max: 349.59 [104.7%] avg: 345.95 [104.0%] std: 2.72 runs: 3 2k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 330.01 [99.7%] max: 333.92 [100.1%] avg: 332.22 [99.9%] std: 1.64 runs: 3 System 8k-no-limit/base: min: 1175.64 max: 1259.38 avg: 1222.39 std: 34.88 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/rework min: 1226.31 [104.3%] max: 1241.60 [98.6%] avg: 1233.74 [100.9%] std: 6.25 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 1023.45 [87.1%] max: 1056.74 [83.9%] avg: 1038.92 [85.0%] std: 13.69 runs: 3 Elapsed 8k-no-limit/base: min: 613.36 max: 619.60 avg: 616.47 std: 2.55 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/rework min: 627.56 [102.3%] max: 642.33 [103.7%] avg: 633.44 [102.8%] std: 6.39 runs: 3 8k-no-limit/reworkoptim: min: 545.89 [89.0%] max: 555.36 [89.6%] avg: 552.06 [89.6%] std: 4.37 runs: 3 and these numbers look good as well. System time is around 100% (suprisingly better for the 8k case) and Elapsed is copies that trend. Signed-off-by: NMichal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> Cc: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com> Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@openvz.org> Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com> Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Cc: Ying Han <yinghan@google.com> Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
7d910c05